X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm12-vm0.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.44.126] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 5003471 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:28:50 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.44.126; envelope-from=bryanwinberry@bellsouth.net Received: from [98.139.44.107] by nm12.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jun 2011 16:28:14 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.68] by tm12.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jun 2011 16:28:14 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1005.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jun 2011 16:28:14 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 366828.52257.bm@omp1005.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 47157 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2011 16:28:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bellsouth.net; s=s1024; t=1307204893; bh=+EswJ7J7hIz+bDDH95bZlVjjFDvfEUgBOC3s7UvTSRI=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To; b=RhRiEy1eNJjYdwiOkDRzaDq0b9Wqdeh+UfABQ+KZrRrsFpbE7/tmjqphsTUkq1yp3ygOiwG2n5xOaQ9kocSVkXww1fgc3z3q1yItp070pphW9dQgAyM5Y72+5Iedz5guRAsTP3kGGlxCy0TBkg37H2m+IM8ezJtsxrFqJfeuyo0= Received: from acer7fbfa7e2f7 (bryanwinberry@98.88.77.254 with login) by smtp108.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 04 Jun 2011 09:28:12 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: OSuEAS2swBAaBd4uKxevNivslbMG7JXpWjAWZVmoYyRm6qcW_W2VUA-- X-YMail-OSG: SXmSXJoVM1mNxyRv0clerOABaDc1PmdBHW3.8AJYYLJM7Cb kO.Zy67GLyIjovVccfv54TYN0MTMzqkm80xX3f8cWjQZh30rdcw3AQkjpB1I TF7DWZ9nbu8IMTc9DzahVfUyLVJwO4OIElJZaIbwLdrbLevnTcuMLsJ2cdg7 GssRdkV5Th3hy1xW34JyiFFnBZa3ET80hz8E81LJK1rYAj3QQwtpGpA0yQGv GcUbn5gOUoV0nM6sqIEFAOvc4jaGoEOj3r0ERLckMXVr5G7OXrP7d7wUBajP F_8uIliES3VEPpMVknxOO43K04yBi14lyIMtEjTwh.Ydl_rdr2nQlH4nWSRJ 9Vkuub569UGJjSJB6H6Qg_aVh X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: "Bryan Winberry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Fwd: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:28:06 -0400 Message-ID: <0371C40639114277ACA946A8A9EE057A@acer7fbfa7e2f7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F9_01CC22B2.DBEAE830" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acwiz9ckddImUN28SXmb/coxshhy6gABGu7A X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090 In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01CC22B2.DBEAE830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nice concise reply Mark. Will be interested if any replies are generated. Bryan _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 11:55 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Fwd: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine Guys, Here's the latest posting on the Lancair list relating to alternative (rotary) engines. It will likely be my last posting as I feel that my time would be better spent talking to my dog. Mark ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Steitle Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine To: Lancair Mailing List Hi Gary, Since I have actually completed a successful rotary installation, I would like to comment on the rotary engine option. First, addressing the negatives, 1) Apex seals - The apex seal issue has been solved long ago and is no longer an issue, unless the engine is over-boosted and allowed to detonate; if this is a concern, do what the boosted guys do and go with the oversized 3mm apex seals. Even if the apex seal issue was still an issue, losing an apex seal is equivalent to burning an exhaust valve. The engine will still run, just be down on power. 2) Insurance - Obtaining full-coverage insurance has not been an issue for my ES, 3) Complex Systems - Not sure what you're referring with complex systems (running EFI which also handles ignition); Yes, I'm running 6 coils, but that provides redundancy, also running dual alternators/batteries (Z-14 design) same as many others. 4) weight is virtually the same as IO-540 (to the best of my recollection, my ES weighed in at 2080#), 5) Cooling drag - I will concede this one, but this can be minimized with careful cooling design and the use of cowl flaps. The P-51, and others, were liquid cooled. As I recall, the Voyager was liquid cooled and it made it around the globe non-stop. 5) Rotary engine's exhaust is loud - Agree, but this can be handled with a turbo, a good muffler, sound insulation, and/or an ANR headset. As for the rotary's positives: 1) The rotary is the epitome of the KISS principle. The 20B (3-rotor) rotary engine has only 4 moving parts (3 cast iron rotors and an eccentric shaft). There's no camshaft, cam gears, rocker arms, intake or exhaust valves, pushrods, lifters, valve springs, keepers, connecting rods, caps, or bolts, piston pins, etc. - If it isn't there, it can't break. 2) 350hp (n/a p-port 3-rotor) 3) While parts are not exactly cheap (by automotive standards), they are much cheaper than certified a/c parts. The typical overhaul cost for a rotary engine is less than the cost of one jug for a certified engine. 4) Millions of rotary cars have been built; the rotary engine is well proven technology. 5) Cruise Fuel burn is for my p-ported 3-rotor is14.5-15 gph, 23 gph in climb mode. However, the rotary can burn mo-gas. 6) No concern with shock cooling. Just pull the throttle and descend, no worry. 7) No hot-start issues. 8) Comes stock with 2 plugs/rotor, providing redundancy The stock rotary engine redlines at 9000 rpm. I typically cruise at 5200 rpm. Since the rotors turn at 1/3 crank speed, the rotors are only turning 1733 rpm in cruise. If/when I want to go faster, I run it at 5900 rpm, the point on the rpm curve where there is the least amount of bearing load. Even at 5900 rpm, the rotors are turning less than 2000 rpm. I'll be the first to admit that the rotary route is not for everybody, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to go down this path. Personally, I'm extremely pleased with my choice of engines and plan on flying it for many years to come. All I ask is that it is given a fair evaluation. Mark S. Austin, TX On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Gary Casey wrote: Lot's of interesting comments on the subject of alternate engines. I was convinced I was going to use an automotive V-8 at one time, but the last straws were the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting insurance and the low (or impossibility) of resae value. As someone said, the resale value would likely be the same as an aircraft without an engine. And my analysis showed that the installed cost would be about the same (or more) then for an aircraft engine. But the internals of any of these engines are robust and should able to tolerate high continuous power. My conclusions - opinions of the disadvantages: V-8 with reduction gear: Heavy - about 150 pound penalty Complex installation and systems Slight fuel consumption penalty V-8 engine direct drive turbocharged: Heavy - about 75 pound penalty Complex installation and systems Rotary engine: Very complex installation and systems Heavy - up to 50 pound penalty Potentially fragile apex seals Hgh cooling drag Noisy Significant fuel consumption penalty increases the weight penalty Turbine engine: High initial cost High fuel consumption negates any weight savings Misc. opinions: The liquid-cooled V-8 dates back to about 1918 when Chevrolet built the first mass-produced one, so it's technology is even older than the air-cooled engine's "30's technology" that someone mentioned. Gary Casey ------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01CC22B2.DBEAE830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nice concise reply = Mark.

Will be interested if any replies = are generated.

Bryan

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Saturday, June 04, = 2011 11:55 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Fwd: = [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine

 

Guys, 

 

Here's the = latest posting on the Lancair list relating to alternative (rotary) engines.  It = will likely be my last posting as I feel that my time would be better spent = talking to my dog.

Mark 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine
To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>


Hi Gary, 

 

Since I have actually completed a successful rotary = installation, I would like to comment on the rotary engine option. =  

 

First, addressing the = negatives, 

 

1)  Apex seals - The apex seal issue has been solved long = ago and is no longer an issue, unless the engine is over-boosted and allowed to detonate; if this is a concern, do what the boosted guys do and go with the oversized 3mm apex seals.  Even if the apex seal issue was = still an issue, losing an apex seal is equivalent to burning an exhaust valve.  The engine will still run, just be down on = power. 

 

2) Insurance -  Obtaining full-coverage insurance has not = been an issue for my ES, 

 

3) Complex Systems - Not sure what you're referring with complex systems (running EFI which also handles ignition);  Yes, I'm = running 6 coils, but that provides redundancy, also running dual = alternators/batteries (Z-14 design) same as many others.  

 

 4)  weight is virtually the same as IO-540 (to the = best of my recollection, my ES weighed in at =  2080#),

 

5) Cooling drag - I will concede this one, but this can be = minimized with careful cooling design and the use of cowl flaps.  The P-51, = and others, were liquid cooled.  As I recall, the Voyager was liquid = cooled and it made it around the globe non-stop.   =  

 

5) Rotary engine's exhaust is loud - Agree, but this can be = handled with a turbo, a good muffler, sound insulation, and/or an ANR = headset.

 

 

As for the rotary's positives:

 

1)  The rotary is the epitome of the KISS principle. =  The 20B (3-rotor) rotary engine has only 4 moving parts (3 cast iron rotors and = an eccentric shaft).  There's no camshaft, cam gears, rocker arms, = intake or exhaust valves, pushrods, lifters, valve springs, keepers, connecting = rods, caps, or bolts, piston pins, etc.  - If it isn't there, it can't break. 

 

2) 350hp (n/a p-port 3-rotor)

 

3) While parts are not exactly cheap (by automotive standards), = they are much cheaper than certified a/c parts.  The typical overhaul = cost for a rotary engine is less than the cost of one jug for a certified = engine.

 

4) Millions of rotary cars have been built; the rotary engine is = well proven technology.

 

5) Cruise Fuel burn is for my p-ported 3-rotor is14.5-15 gph, 23 = gph in climb mode.  However, the rotary can burn = mo-gas.

 

6) No concern with shock cooling.  Just pull the throttle = and descend, no worry.

 

7) No hot-start issues.  

 

8) Comes stock with 2 plugs/rotor, providing = redundancy 

 

The stock rotary engine redlines at 9000 rpm.  I typically = cruise at 5200 rpm.  Since the rotors turn at 1/3 crank speed, the rotors = are only turning 1733 rpm in cruise.  If/when I want to go faster, I = run it at 5900 rpm, the point on the rpm curve where there is the least amount of = bearing load.  Even at 5900 rpm, the rotors are turning less than 2000 = rpm. 

 

I'll be the first to admit that the rotary route is not for = everybody, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to go down this path. =  Personally, I'm extremely pleased with my choice of engines and plan on flying it = for many years to come.  All I ask is that it is given a fair evaluation. =    

 

Mark S.

Austin, TX

 

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> wrote:

Lot's of interesting comments on the subject of alternate engines.  I was = convinced I was going to use an automotive V-8 at one time, but the last straws = were the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting insurance and the low (or impossibility) of resae value.  As someone said, the resale value = would likely be the same as an aircraft without an engine.  And my = analysis showed that the installed cost would be about the same (or = more) then for an aircraft engine.  But the internals of any of these engines are = robust and should able to tolerate high continuous power.  My = conclusions - opinions of the disadvantages:

 

V-8 with reduction = gear:

Heavy - about 150 pound = penalty

Complex installation and = systems

Slight fuel consumption = penalty

 

V-8 engine direct drive = turbocharged:

Heavy - about 75 pound = penalty

Complex installation and = systems

 

Rotary = engine:

Very complex installation and = systems

Heavy - up to 50 pound = penalty

Potentially fragile apex = seals

Hgh cooling = drag

Noisy

Significant fuel consumption penalty = increases the weight penalty

 

Turbine = engine:

High initial = cost

High fuel consumption negates any = weight savings

 

Misc. opinions:  The liquid-cooled = V-8 dates back to about 1918 when Chevrolet built the first mass-produced = one, so it's technology is even older than the air-cooled engine's = "30's technology" that someone mentioned.

 

Gary Casey

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01CC22B2.DBEAE830--